Kyoto failed; focus should be on adapting

First, backers of the 1997 international climate treaty sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5 percent from 1990 levels, but worldwide emissions increased 58 percent instead. By any measure, that's failure. Germany's renewable-energy institute concluded, “If the current trend is sustained, worldwide CO2 emissions will go up by another 20 percent, to over 40 billion metric tons, by 2020.”

Kyoto's quest was hampered from the beginning when decision makers divided the world into rich countries, like the United States, with ambitious climate-control responsibilities, and less-developed economies, like China, with none. Apart from its disproportionate burdens, this also ignored economic trends, which saw China pass the United States as the world's leading CO2 producer.

There are good reasons developing nations refused to limit their use of affordable CO2-generating fossil fuels. Global average life expectancy and per capita output barely changed throughout most of human history. With few exceptions, people died early and lived in poverty.

But the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century and concurrent scientific breakthroughs increased life expectancy from 26 years to 69 years. World population and incomes saw exponential increases, says the libertarian Cato Institute. Fossil fuels are the chief energy source of that transformation. Accordingly, CO2 emissions increased with improved living conditions.

Second, as feckless as Kyoto was, long-term prospects dwarf its significance. China will emit the same amount of CO2 in the first 30 years of the 21st century as the U.S. did during the entire 20th century, says George Monbiot, author of “Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning.”

Third, wealthy nations like the U.S. refused to commit to limits because developing countries like China and India were exempted and would gain huge economic advantages. When the treaty expired, only 37 of the original 194 signatory nations said they would extend commitments under a proposed new treaty still years off. Canada, Russia and Japan are among those who jumped ship. The 37 nations generate 15 percent of worldwide emissions.

Kyoto was intended as a first step. How much more is needed to “stabilize” atmospheric greenhouse gases? Proponents' estimated it would take 10 to 50
additional measures on the scale of Kyoto. That simply won't happen.

“Even if we were to cut emissions by 50 percent below 1990-levels by 2050 – an extremely unrealistic scenario – the difference in temperature would be less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit in 2050,” observes Bjorn Lomborg, Danish author of the book “The Skeptical Environmentalist.”

It should be clear to both those who believe and those who don't believe rising emissions adversely affect climate that wasteful, counterproductive restrictions and subsidies, such as spawned by Kyoto, only divert resources from doing what mankind always does best to deal with change: adapt. Money would be better spent building barriers to hold back 2 or 3 inches of rising seas over the next century, and by better insulating buildings in tropical zones.

“[I]f our concern is with saving lives and helping the planet's most vulnerable populations, then we need to focus first on how we can build more resilient, adaptable communities,” Mr. Lomborg says. We agree.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.